Advertising Disclaimer »

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

State-of-the-Art Review Article

The Regionalization of Pediatric Health Care

Scott A. Lorch, Sage Myers and Brendan Carr
Pediatrics December 2010, 126 (6) 1182-1190; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1119
Download PDF

Abstract

Regionalization of health care is a method of providing high-quality, cost-efficient health care to the largest number of patients. Within pediatric medicine, regionalization has been undertaken in 2 areas: neonatal intensive care and pediatric trauma care. The supporting literature for the regionalization of these areas demonstrates the range of studies within this field: studies of neonatal intensive care primarily compare different levels of hospitals, whereas studies of pediatric trauma care primarily compare the impact of institutionalizing a trauma system in a single geographic region. However, neither specialty has been completely regionalized, possibly because of methodologic deficiencies in the evidence base. Research with improved study designs, controlling for differences in illness severity between different hospitals; a systems approach to regionalization studies; and measurement of parental preferences will improve the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of regionalizing pediatric medicine and will ultimately optimize the outcomes of children.

The phrase “regionalization of health care” suggests the development of a structured system of care “to improve patient outcomes by directing patients to facilities with optimal capabilities for a given type of illness or injury.”1 The development of a regionalized system is typically driven by economic factors, such as the infeasibility of all hospitals to maintain the equipment and personnel to treat specific medical conditions,2 or by interhospital variations in patient outcomes within a geographic region.

The development of these regionalized systems is not the same as the development of regional centers of care. Competitive market forces that focus on improved outcomes create regional centers of excellence at which patients choose to receive care. Examples of such regional centers include adult cancer care and complex surgical procedures. However, a number of conditions, such as adult cardiac care and stroke management,3,–,6 are less amenable to these free-market principles, because their acute presentation does not allow patients to make informed choices on where they will receive care. For these conditions, regionalized systems ensure that patients receive the early care necessary to optimize their outcomes.7

It is unfortunate that the evidence base for regionalized systems in pediatric medicine has lagged behind the development of such systems. The purpose of this article is to (1) present a conceptual framework for the development of regionalized health care systems, (2) describe types of evidence for regionalized systems, (3) describe the overall deficiencies in the current literature, and (4) outline a plan for future research. In this review we use neonatal intensive care8 and pediatric trauma care9 as examples for other pediatric conditions that, in the future, may be amenable to a more regionalized approach to care. In both areas, hospitals are already given a “level” of care based on their capabilities that differ between neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and pediatric trauma centers (Table 1).9,10

View this table:
TABLE 1

Levels of Care for NICUs and Pediatric Trauma Centers

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Regionalization improves patient outcomes through 2 primary mechanisms (Table 2): improved outcomes at high-volume, high-specialty centers and improved coordination of care within a given geographic area. Regionalization may take several forms (Fig 1). Models such as the spoke-and-hub system and the web system are characterized by a specialized center that manages the most complex conditions in patients within a geographic area and is supported by less specialized hospitals. The degree of coordination between hospitals helps distinguish the 2 systems. The “minihub” model is a less coordinated, “deregionalized” system that may develop depending on financial incentives, hospital and geographic characteristics, patient preferences, and lack of coordination between centers (Fig 2).

View this table:
TABLE 2

Mechanisms Through Which Regionalization of Care Improves Outcomes

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Various forms of regionalization systems. Squares represent central, specialty hospitals, and the triangles represent non–specialty hospitals. Arrows represent the direction of patients within the system. The spoke-and-hub system and the web system are characterized by a specialty center that manages patients referred to them by outlying non–specialty hospitals. The degree of coordination between the 2 types of hospitals distinguishes between these 2 systems. The minihub model is characterized by an expansion of specialty hospitals that have differing degrees of interaction with the transport system, non–specialty hospitals, and other specialty hospitals. The integrated web approach is characterized by seamless communication and coordination between specialty and non–specialty hospitals.

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

Conceptual framework for the development of regional systems. Various factors contribute to the development of both the type of regionalized system described in Fig 1 and the overall degree of regionalization. SES indicates socioeconomic status.

TYPES OF REGIONALIZATION STUDIES AND THEIR OUTCOMES

Studies of Individual Hospitals: Improved Outcomes at Specialty Hospitals

One recognized outcome of regionalization research is that the management of complex conditions at specialized hospitals may improve outcomes. For example, studies from California revealed that premature infants delivered at lower-level or lower-volume NICUs had a 19% to 272% increased odds of mortality.11,–,13 Older studies14,–,16 and other recent studies from Colorado, South Carolina, and Illinois17,–,19 had similar results.

In contrast, although evidence suggests that injured adult patients have improved outcomes at definitive trauma centers,20,21 state-specific or single-institution studies have not consistently resulted in improved outcomes for pediatric trauma victims treated at pediatric trauma centers or high-volume centers.22,–,27 One national study revealed that pediatric trauma victims have improved outcomes when cared for at freestanding children's hospitals.28 However, this comparison disregards confounding from trauma level. The current classification of pediatric trauma centers lacks uniformity, which makes large-scale evaluations of outcomes according to trauma level extremely difficult. Although performing single-center or single-state studies standardizes this classification, these studies are poorly generalizable to the national trauma system. Thus, in 2007, the authors of a scientific review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine where pediatric trauma victims have the best outcomes.29

Studies of Geographic Systems: Increased Geographic Coordination of Care and Knowledge Transfer

Regionalization of care may also improve patient outcomes through increased coordination of care and knowledge transfer between central, specialized hospitals and non–specialty hospitals. Measured from a population perspective, implementation of a trauma system provides a 15% to 20% improvement in survival rate among seriously injured patients.30 Regionalized pediatric trauma care has been shown to result in similar improvement in mortality rates for patients who are injured and those who have been in a motor vehicle crash.31,32

Unlike pediatric trauma care, there have been few studies of the impact of neonatal intensive care systems on perinatal health and outcomes. Many studies occur outside the United States.33,34 Results of the 1 randomized study of neonatal intensive care regionalization performed in the late 1970s suggested that a regionalized system increases deliveries of very low birth weight infants at specialty hospitals without a significantly lower mortality rate.8 More recent studies have examined the impact of perinatal deregionalization within a single geographic area.18,35,–,39 There have been few attempts to measure the impact of these poorly organized deregionalization programs on outcomes within a geographic area. As with pediatric trauma studies, single-state studies have limited generalizability and statistical power to detect a difference in outcomes.

Moderating Factors for the Development of Regionalized Systems

There are a number of factors that help determine both the degree of regionalization and the type of system that develops in any given geographic area (Fig 2). Although there have been no studies of the relationship between geographic factors such as population density, the composition of the physician workforce, and the type of system that develops, studies of other modulating factors help explain the development of various regionalized systems of care.

Financial Incentives

Financial incentives play a role in the development of different types of regionalized systems. The regional model of neonatal intensive care began to weaken in many areas of the United States by the 1990s.35,36,40 For example, in California between 1990 and 1997, the percentage of very low birth weight births at regional perinatal centers declined from 36.5% to 27.2%, and the percentage of these births at community hospitals increased from 11.7% to 37.4%.39 The economic incentives in obstetric care help explain some of this expansion of specialty NICUs. Fees for the delivery of the infant are much higher than the fees, if any, for the provision of prenatal care. Thus, many hospitals are under economic pressure to open a specialty NICU to reduce the number of transfers of high-risk women to a central, specialty unit. These community specialty NICUs typically do not have the capability to manage all premature infants delivered at their hospital, which results in a “miniweb” model of health care, in which there are multiple large- and small-volume specialty centers that vary widely in their transport capability and coordination of care with non–specialty units and other specialty units (Fig 2). Although these community specialty hospitals may meet the evidence provided by studies that focused on the improved outcomes of patients treated at specialty hospitals, such systems undermine the original intent of regionalized care by limiting the number of infants transferred to central, high-volume hospitals. These factors result in maldistributed capacity. A comprehensive examination of the outcomes and costs of such systems is essential to optimize the outcomes of premature infants.

In pediatric trauma care, the financial incentives of care are quite different. Many hospitals do not profit from the provision of pediatric trauma care. Thus, an estimated 28.5% of the pediatric population lacks prompt access to high-level pediatric trauma care, whereas other regions have multiple hospitals with high-level pediatric trauma capabilities.41 As with neonatal intensive care, the expansion of pediatric trauma care has not historically matched the needs of the population. Remedies to this mismatch may require expansion of high-level pediatric trauma centers into new regions or the development of a coordinated-care approach.

Coordination of Care Between Hospitals

There has been interest recently in using alternatives to patient transport for the coordination of patient care. One feature that underlies the more interrelated “web” models of regionalized care is the amount of coordination between various specialty hospitals and between specialty and non–specialty hospitals. The most prominent alternative has been the use of technology such as telemedicine to deliver the doctor, albeit virtually, to the patient. For example, telemedicine may allow a patient to be kept at a local, less specialized center when access to a subspecialist is the primary reason to transfer a patient. This practice is amenable to subspecialists who rely on pattern recognition and cognitive decision-making, including radiologists interpreting radiographs,42 ophthalmologists examining the retina of a premature infant,43,44 dermatologists examining rashes, and vascular neurologists examining patients and reviewing imaging studies.4,6,45 Even for conditions that may require procedural interventions, such as critical care medicine, telemedical consultation has been used to assist in the management of patients before transfer.46 The effectiveness of such remote interactions, however, is uncertain, because of small sample sizes47 or technological barriers to accurate image quality.48

An additional challenge to these telemedicine models is the continued need for a baseline level of specialist care or cognitive knowledge at the non–specialty unit. These services can extend beyond physicians, including the quality of nursing staff and specialized equipment that may be available only at the specialty hospital. Rigorous observational or experimental studies of the costs and benefits of these treatment modalities are still needed.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Location

Patient preferences for treatment location are poorly understood. Adult patients tend to receive obstetric and medical care at the nearest medical center,49,50 and regionalization has increased travel times for adults undergoing surgical procedures or angioplasty for myocardial infarction.51,52 The role of travel time in pediatric medicine is unknown. Also, regionalized systems rely on the back-transport, or repatriation, of patients to non–specialty hospitals once their acuity improves. Without such a system, the specialty hospitals could be overcrowded with patients whose care is better matched to other hospitals. Recent data from 236 neonatal families at 2 East Coast hospitals revealed that <50% of families desired back-transport because of their comfort with the caregiver team at the high-level hospital.53 Consistent communication between the provider and family is a critical element to a smooth back-transport.54 Most studies of back-transport suffer from the biased selection of patients chosen for back-transport, compared with those who remained at the specialty center until discharge.55 More research is needed on how families choose a hospital and on methods to optimize transfer of patients.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE LITERATURE

There are common deficiencies in many areas of regionalization research. These deficiencies include inadequate adjustments for case-mix differences between specialty and non–specialty hospitals, a limited number of assessed outcomes, and failure to account for the quality of individual hospitals in the analysis.

Differences in Case Mix

Because of the observational nature of most regionalization research, the research design must account for the fact that specialty hospitals typically care for sicker patients than non–specialty hospitals. These differences can be measured by using either basic markers of illness risk such as gestational age or mode of delivery in studies of premature infants or illness severity scores, such as the Score of Neonatal Acute Physiology (SNAP), in neonatology56 and the Injury Severity Score (ISS)57 and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS)58,–,60 in pediatric trauma. However, <30% of the studies of perinatal regionalization controlled for illness severity.15,35,61,62 Also, these scores may be inaccurate,63,–,68 may rely on data unavailable in large-scale population studies, or “control” away for poor-quality care that occurs when data are being collected. This latter point is potentially important for scores such as the SNAP, which uses information from the first 12 to 24 hours after delivery to calculate the score, which could adjust for poor-quality resuscitation.

Even with methods to control for case mix, there still may be unmeasured differences in the patients receiving care at specialty hospitals. In pediatric trauma, a well-discriminating injury-scoring system cannot control for the unmeasured factors that lead an emergency medical service team to transport a pediatric trauma patient directly to a pediatric trauma center. These factors include weather, perceived severity of the injury, and the clinical stability of the patient.69 Unmeasured factors in neonatal studies include fetal heart tracing results and the severity of antepartum comorbidities such as hypertension. Authors of earlier studies of perinatal regionalization have noted that only those infants who “may survive” were transferred to a specialty hospital and were, consequently, less sick. Currently, though, physicians are more likely to transfer the sicker mother, although the number of transports have decreased.39,70 These issues demonstrate the need for other study designs to adjust for this bias in observational studies, such as propensity-score71,–,73 or instrumental-variables approaches.74 Propensity-score approaches improve the equality of various strata of case and control patients by using risk factors to predict the likelihood of receiving a treatment, whereas an instrumental-variables approach helps control for unmeasured differences in case mix by “pseudo-randomizing” patients to their delivery hospital by using factors that are associated with where a patient delivers but are not directly associated with outcomes. Both strategies help control for the selection bias inherent in all regionalization studies.

Limited Assessed Outcomes

Mortality is the most common outcome in studies of injury and neonatal intensive care. Mortality rates are useful, because mortality is clearly defined, mortality rates vary after adjusting for differences in case mix,75,76 and there are associations between lower risk-adjusted mortality rates and some hospital-level processes of care.11 However, pediatric mortality is usually a rare event except in specific subpopulations such as very low birth weight infants.77

Few studies have examined other outcomes. Only 2 studies of regionalized neonatal intensive care have examined neurodevelopmental outcome, but they revealed no differences between regionalized and nonregionalized areas,78,79 whereas 1 study revealed improved functional outcomes for severely injured children who were treated at pediatric trauma centers.80 Only 1 study examined a complication of either premature birth or injury.81 In general, differences in processes of care have also been poorly studied. One condition that has been examined is the management of splenic injury, for which centers with pediatric surgeons have lower operative rates than centers with adult-care surgeons.82,–,86 Differences in other processes of care between regionalized and deregionalized areas, either within pediatric trauma care or neonatal intensive care, have not been studied.

Assessing the Quality of Individual Hospitals Within Larger Groupings of Care Level

No pediatric regionalization study has accounted for differences in care delivered at individual hospitals. The authors of 1 study of very low birth weight infants estimated that measured hospital characteristics such as hospital volume predicted 9% of the variation in mortality rates between NICUs, whereas unmeasured characteristics—likely variations in quality—predicted 84% of these variations.87,88 A similar study of 47 level I adult trauma centers revealed wide variations in mortality rates, especially for the most severely injured patients.89 There has been no such analysis between high-level pediatric trauma centers. Proper methods should be used to distinguish variation related to the individual hospital and variation related to other characteristics of the hospital such as volume and level of care.

FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

In this overview we have shown that the evidence base for regionalized care, although compelling, is incomplete. Recommendations for future areas of research should focus in 5 areas.

Improved Study Designs

  1. Studies should include additional outcomes of interest in addition to mortality. These outcomes may include clinical outcomes, such as functional ability or neurodevelopmental outcome; complications of care; measures of patient safety, such as infection rates or medication errors; and costs of care using cost-effectiveness or cost-utility studies.

  2. More research should develop and validate measures of illness severity, particularly by using data available from large-scale populations.

  3. Regionalization studies should use methods to control for unmeasured differences in case mix between groups of hospitals, such as instrumental-variables approaches.

  4. Studies should examine interhospital variations in outcomes, particularly within hospitals with similar consistently applied characteristics such as “high-level,” “high-volume,” and “teaching” hospitals.

  5. Variables included in the risk-adjustment model and a measurement of the model's discrimination, such as a c statistic or area under a receiver operator curve, should be reported.

  6. Researchers should examine the impact of the implementation of regionalization in countries or smaller geographic areas.33,34 Comparing the change in outcomes in these areas to the change in outcomes to similar areas that did not experience a change allows for valid assessments of the impact of these policy changes.

Financial Incentives

Additional research should assess the role of obstetric and neonatal financial incentives, both how payment is divided between providers of prenatal versus delivery care and how alternative forms of payment, such as pay-for-performance,90 affect the degree of regionalization and its outcome.

Development of New Systems of Regionalized Care: Hospitals and Competition

Researchers should examine new systems of regionalized care that account for both new technology and the economics of a given medical system. For example, to account for geographic areas with multiple central specialized hospitals, an “integrated web approach” may allow for a more collaborative approach to the management of both patients with routine conditions and those with complex conditions (Fig 1). Studies of these models should investigate the effect of reduced hospital competition on patient outcomes and methods to encourage collaboration between specialty centers.

Measures of Patient Preferences

Qualitative and quantitative research studies into parental preferences for treatment location during both the initial and chronic phases of treatment are needed. These preferences can be used as outcome measures for both standard studies of regionalized care and in cost-effectiveness or cost-utility studies.

Geographic Influences on Regionalization

There have been no studies of how geography, demography, and overall socioeconomic status influence the type of system that is implemented. These macro-level studies are important for understanding how regionalized systems develop and evolve over time.

CONCLUSIONS

To assess the optimal organization of pediatric health care, multiple outcomes from the perspectives of the individual, hospital, and population must be explored. Reliance on studies of 1 type may have unintended consequences, as seen in many systems of neonatal intensive care in the United States. Solid evidence for both the improvement in patient care and outcomes at specialty centers and the added benefit of various regional system models are needed to optimize the care of populations of patients with specialized, high-risk conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grants 1-R01-HS015696 (Dr Lorch) and K08HS017960 (Dr Carr) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant R03HD061523 (Dr Carr).

Footnotes

    • Accepted July 23, 2010.
  • Address correspondence to Scott A. Lorch, MD, MSCE, Center for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market St, Suite 1029, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: lorch{at}email.chop.edu

  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System, Board on Health Care Services. Emergency Medical Services at the Crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007
  2. 2.↵
    1. Menke TJ,
    2. Wray NP
    . When does regionalization of expensive medical care save money?Health Serv Manage Res. 2001;14(2):116–124
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Institute of Medicine. Regionalizing Emergency Care: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010
  4. 4.↵
    1. Meyer BC,
    2. Raman R,
    3. Hemmen T,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(9):787–795
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Duchesne JC,
    2. Kyle A,
    3. Simmons J,
    4. et al
    . Impact of telemedicine upon rural trauma care. J Trauma. 2008;64(1):92–97; discussion 97–98
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Schwamm LH,
    2. Audebert HJ,
    3. Amarenco P,
    4. et al
    . Recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine within stroke systems of care: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2009;40(7):2635–2660
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Carr BG,
    2. Conway PH,
    3. Meisel ZF,
    4. Steiner CA,
    5. Clancy C
    . Defining the emergency care sensitive condition: a health policy research agenda in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(1):49–51
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. McCormick MC,
    2. Shapiro S,
    3. Starfield BH
    . The regionalization of perinatal services: summary of the evaluation of a national demonstration program. JAMA. 1985;253(6):799–804
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006
  10. 10.↵
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Levels of neonatal care [published correction appears in Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):1118]. Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1341–1347
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Phibbs CS,
    2. Bronstein JM,
    3. Buxton E,
    4. Phibbs RH
    . The effects of patient volume and level of care at the hospital of birth on neonatal mortality. JAMA. 1996;276(13):1054–1059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Phibbs CS,
    2. Baker LC,
    3. Caughey AB,
    4. Danielsen B,
    5. Schmitt SK,
    6. Phibbs RH
    . Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2165–2175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cifuentes J,
    2. Bronstein J,
    3. Phibbs CS,
    4. Phibbs RH,
    5. Schmitt SK,
    6. Carlo WA
    . Mortality in low birth weight infants according to level of neonatal care at hospital of birth. Pediatrics. 2002;109(5):745–751
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Paneth N,
    2. Kiely JL,
    3. Wallenstein S,
    4. Susser M
    . The choice of place of delivery: effect of hospital level on mortality in all singleton births in New York City. Am J Dis Child. 1987;141(1):60–64
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Berg CJ,
    2. Druschel CM,
    3. McCarthy BJ,
    4. LaVoie M,
    5. Floyd RL
    . Neonatal mortality in normal birth weight babies: does the level of hospital care make a difference?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161(1):86–91
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gortmaker S,
    2. Sobol A,
    3. Clark C,
    4. Walker DK,
    5. Geronimus A
    . The survival of very low-birth weight infants by level of hospital of birth: a population study of perinatal systems in four states. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152(5):517–524
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kamath BD,
    2. Box TL,
    3. Simpson M,
    4. Hernandez JA
    . Infants born at the threshold of viability in relation to neonatal mortality: Colorado, 1991 to 2003. J Perinatol. 2008;28(5):354–360
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Menard MK,
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Holgren EA,
    4. Sappenfield WM
    . Neonatal mortality for very low birth weight deliveries in South Carolina by level of hospital perinatal service. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(2):374–381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Dooley SL,
    2. Freels SA,
    3. Turnock BJ
    . Quality assessment of perinatal regionalization by multivariate analysis: Illinois, 1991–1993. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(2):193–198
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. MacKenzie EJ,
    2. Rivara FP,
    3. Jurkovich GJ,
    4. et al
    . A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(4):366–378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Demetriades D,
    2. Martin M,
    3. Salim A,
    4. Rhee P,
    5. Brown C,
    6. Chan L
    . The effect of trauma center designation and trauma volume on outcome in specific severe injuries. Ann Surg. 2005;242(4):512–517; discussion 517–519
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Potoka DA,
    2. Schall LC,
    3. Gardner MJ,
    4. Stafford PW,
    5. Peitzman AB,
    6. Ford HR
    . Impact of pediatric trauma centers on mortality in a statewide system. J Trauma. 2000;49(2):237–245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Sherman HF,
    2. Landry VL,
    3. Jones LM
    . Should level I trauma centers be rated NC-17?J Trauma. 2001;50(5):784–791
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Nakayama DK,
    2. Copes WS,
    3. Sacco W
    . Differences in trauma care among pediatric and nonpediatric trauma centers. J Pediatr Surg. 1992;27(4):427–431
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Colombani PM,
    2. Buck Jr,
    3. Dudgeon DL,
    4. Miller D,
    5. Haller JA Jr.
    . One-year experience in a regional pediatric trauma center. J Pediatr Surg. 1985;20(1):8–13
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Aaland MO,
    2. Hlaing T
    . Pediatric trauma deaths: a three-part analysis from a nonacademic trauma center. Am Surg. 2006;72(3):249–259
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Serleth HJ,
    2. Cogbill TH,
    3. Perri C,
    4. Lambert PJ,
    5. Ross AJ 3rd.,
    6. Thompson JE
    . Pediatric trauma management in a rural Wisconsin trauma center. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1999;15(6):393–398
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Densmore JC,
    2. Lim HJ,
    3. Oldham KT,
    4. Guice KS
    . Outcomes and delivery of care in pediatric injury. J Pediatr Surg. 2006;41(1):92–98
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Ochoa C,
    2. Chokshi N,
    3. Upperman JS,
    4. Jurkovich GJ,
    5. Ford HR
    . Prior studies comparing outcomes from trauma care at children's hospitals versus adult hospitals. J Trauma. 2007;63(6 suppl):S87–S91
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Mullins RJ,
    2. Mann NC
    . Population-based research assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems. J Trauma. 1999;47(3 suppl):S59–S66
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Nathens AB,
    2. Jurkovich GJ,
    3. Cummings P,
    4. Rivara FP,
    5. Maier RV
    . The effect of organized systems of trauma care on motor vehicle crash mortality. JAMA. 2000;283(15):1990–1994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Hulka F,
    2. Mullins RJ,
    3. Mann NC,
    4. et al
    . Influence of a statewide trauma system on pediatric hospitalization and outcome. J Trauma. 1997;42(3):514–519
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Rautava L,
    2. Lehtonen L,
    3. Peltola M
    , et al; PERFECT Preterm Infant Study Group. The effect of birth in secondary- or tertiary-level hospitals in Finland on mortality in very preterm infants: a birth-register study. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1) Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e257
  34. 34.↵
    1. Neto MT
    . Perinatal care in Portugal: effects of 15 years of a regionalized system. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95(11):1349–1352
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Powell SL,
    2. Holt VL,
    3. Hickok DE,
    4. Easterling T,
    5. Connell FA
    . Recent changes in delivery site of low-birth-weight infants in Washington: impact on birth weight-specific mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(5):1585–1592
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Bode MM,
    2. O'Shea TM,
    3. Metzguer KR,
    4. Stiles AD
    . Perinatal regionalization and neonatal mortality in North Carolina, 1968–1994. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(6):1302–1307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Yeast JD,
    2. Poskin M,
    3. Stockbauer JW,
    4. Shaffer S
    . Changing patterns in regionalization of perinatal care and the impact on neonatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(1 pt 1):131–135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Shlossman PA,
    2. Manley JS,
    3. Sciscione AC,
    4. Colmorgen GH
    . An analysis of neonatal morbidity and mortality in maternal (in utero) and neonatal transports at 24–34 weeks' gestation. Am J Perinatol. 1997;14(8):449–456
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Gould JB,
    2. Marks AR,
    3. Chavez G
    . Expansion of community-based perinatal care in California. J Perinatol. 2002;22(8):630–640
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Meadow W,
    2. Kim M,
    3. Mendez D,
    4. et al
    . Which nurseries currently care for ventilated neonates in Illinois and Wisconsin? Implications for the next generation of perinatal regionalization. Am J Perinatol. 2002;19(4):197–203
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Nance ML,
    2. Carr BG,
    3. Branas CC
    . Access to pediatric trauma care in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(6):512–518
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. McLean TR,
    2. Richards EP
    . Teleradiology: a case study of the economic and legal considerations in international trade in telemedicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(5):1378–1385
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Silva RA,
    2. Murakami Y,
    3. Jain A,
    4. Gandhi J,
    5. Lad EM,
    6. Moshfeghi DM
    . Stanford University Network for Diagnosis of Retinopathy of Prematurity (SUNDROP): 18-month experience with telemedicine screening. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247(1):129–136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Richter GM,
    2. Williams SL,
    3. Starren J,
    4. Flynn JT,
    5. Chiang MF
    . Telemedicine for retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis: evaluation and challenges. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009;54(6):671–685
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Schwamm LH,
    2. Holloway RG,
    3. Amarenco P
    , et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Interdisciplinary Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. A review of the evidence for the use of telemedicine within stroke systems of care: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2009;40(7):2616–2634
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Sapirstein A,
    2. Lone N,
    3. Latif A,
    4. Fackler J,
    5. Pronovost PJ
    . Tele ICU: paradox or panacea?Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009;23(1):115–126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Thomas EJ,
    2. Lucke JF,
    3. Wueste L,
    4. Weavind L,
    5. Patel B
    . Association of telemedicine for remote monitoring of intensive care patients with mortality, complications, and length of stay. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2671–2678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Photographic Screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity (Photo-ROP) Cooperative Group. The photographic screening for retinopathy of prematurity study (Photo-ROP). Primary outcomes [published correction appears in Retina. 2009;2029(2001):2127]. Retina. 2008;28(3 suppl):S47–S54
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Phibbs CS,
    2. Mark DH,
    3. Luft HS,
    4. et al
    . Choice of hospital for delivery: a comparison of high-risk and low-risk women. Health Serv Res. 1993;28(2):201–222
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Finlayson SR,
    2. Birkmeyer JD,
    3. Tosteson AN,
    4. Nease RF Jr.
    . Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care. 1999;37(2):204–209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Kansagra SM,
    2. Curtis LH,
    3. Schulman KA
    . Regionalization of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and implications for patient travel distance. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1717–1723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Birkmeyer JD,
    2. Siewers AE,
    3. Marth NJ,
    4. Goodman DC
    . Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA. 2003;290(20):2703–2708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Donohue PK,
    2. Hussey-Gardner B,
    3. Sulpar LJ,
    4. Fox R,
    5. Aucott SW
    . Parents' perception of the back-transport of very-low-birth-weight infants to community hospitals. J Perinatol. 2009;29(8):575–581
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Hanrahan K,
    2. Gates M,
    3. Attar MA,
    4. Lang SW,
    5. Frohna A,
    6. Clark SJ
    . Neonatal back transport: perspectives from parents of Medicaid-insured infants and providers. Neonatal Netw. 2007;26(5):301–311
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Attar MA,
    2. Lang SW,
    3. Gates MR,
    4. Iatrow AM,
    5. Bratton SL
    . Back transport of neonates: effect on hospital length of stay. J Perinatol. 2005;25(11):731–736
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Richardson DK,
    2. Corcoran JD,
    3. Escobar GJ,
    4. Lee SK
    . SNAP-II and SNAPPE-II: simplified newborn illness severity and mortality risk scores. J Pediatr. 2001;138(1):92–100
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Semmlow JL,
    2. Cone R
    . Utility of the injury severity score: a confirmation. Health Serv Res. 1976;11(1):45–52
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Boyd CR,
    2. Tolson MA,
    3. Copes WS
    . Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method—Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987;27(4):370–378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Pillgram-Larsen J,
    2. Marcus M,
    3. Svennevig JL
    . Assessment of probability of survival in penetrating injuries using the TRISS methodology. Injury. 1989;20(1):10–12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Durbin DR,
    2. Localio AR,
    3. MacKenzie EJ
    . Validation of the ICD/AIS MAP for pediatric use. Inj Prev. 2001;7(2):96–99
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Kollée LA,
    2. Verloove-Vanhorick PP,
    3. Verwey RA,
    4. Brand R,
    5. Ruys JH
    . Maternal and neonatal transport: results of a national collaborative survey of preterm and very low birth weight infants in the Netherlands. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(5):729–732
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Mayfield JA,
    2. Rosenblatt RA,
    3. Baldwin LM,
    4. Chu J,
    5. Logerfo JP
    . The relation of obstetrical volume and nursery level to perinatal mortality. Am J Public Health. 1990;80(7):819–823
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Moore L,
    2. Lavoie A,
    3. Turgeon AF,
    4. et al
    . The trauma risk adjustment model: a new model for evaluating trauma care. Ann Surg. 2009;249(6):1040–1046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Demetriades D,
    2. Chan LS,
    3. Velmahos G,
    4. et al
    . TRISS methodology in trauma: the need for alternatives. Br J Surg. 1998;85(3):379–384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Demetriades D,
    2. Chan L,
    3. Velmanos GV,
    4. et al
    . TRISS methodology: an inappropriate tool for comparing outcomes between trauma centers. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;193(3):250–254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Cayten CG,
    2. Stahl WM,
    3. Murphy JG,
    4. Agarwal N,
    5. Byrne DW
    . Limitations of the TRISS method for interhospital comparisons: a multihospital study. J Trauma. 1991;31(4):471–481; discussion 481–472
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Gabbe BJ,
    2. Cameron PA,
    3. Wolfe R
    . TRISS: does it get better than this?Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(2):181–186
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Schall LC,
    2. Potoka DA,
    3. Ford HR
    . A new method for estimating probability of survival in pediatric patients using revised TRISS methodology based on age-adjusted weights. J Trauma. 2002;52(2):235–241
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Field triage decision scheme. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fieldtriage. Accessed July 15, 2010
  70. 70.↵
    1. Vandenbroucke JP
    . When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?Lancet. 2004;363(9422):1728–1731
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Little RJ,
    2. Rubin DB
    . Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:121–145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Rubin DB
    . Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 pt 2):757–763
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Joffe MM,
    2. Rosenbaum PR
    . Invited commentary: propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(4):327–333
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.↵
    1. Newhouse JP,
    2. McClellan M
    . Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17–34
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Horbar JD,
    2. Badger GJ,
    3. Lewit EM,
    4. Rogowski J,
    5. Shiono PH
    . Hospital and patient characteristics associated with variation in 28-day mortality rates for very low birth weight infants. Vermont Oxford Network. Pediatrics. 1997;99(2):149–156
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Sankaran K,
    2. Chien LY,
    3. Walker R,
    4. Seshia M,
    5. Ohlsson A
    ; Canadian Neonatal Network. Variations in mortality rates among Canadian neonatal intensive care units. CMAJ. 2002;166(2):173–178
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Clark SJ,
    2. Yoxall CW,
    3. Subhedar NV
    . Right ventricular performance in hypotensive preterm neonates treated with dopamine. Pediatr Cardiol. 2002;23(2):167–170
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Siegel E,
    2. Gillings D,
    3. Campbell S,
    4. Guild P
    . Controlled evaluation of rural regional perinatal care: developmental and neurologic outcomes at 1 year. Pediatrics. 1986;77(2):187–195
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Kollée LA,
    2. Brand R,
    3. Schreuder AM,
    4. Ens-Dokkum MH,
    5. Veen S,
    6. Verloove-Vanhorick SP
    . Five-year outcome of preterm and very low birth weight infants: a comparison between maternal and neonatal transport. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80(4):635–638
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Potoka DA,
    2. Schall LC,
    3. Ford HR
    . Improved functional outcome for severely injured children treated at pediatric trauma centers. J Trauma. 2001;51(5):824–832; discussion 832–824
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Synnes AR,
    2. Macnab YC,
    3. Qiu Z,
    4. et al
    . Neonatal intensive care unit characteristics affect the incidence of severe intraventricular hemorrhage. Med Care. 2006;44(8):754–759
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Keller MS,
    2. Vane DW
    . Management of pediatric blunt splenic injury: comparison of pediatric and adult trauma surgeons. J Pediatr Surg. 1995;30(2):221–224; discussion 224–225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Frumiento C,
    2. Vane DW
    . Changing patterns of treatment for blunt splenic injuries: an 11-year experience in a rural state. J Pediatr Surg. 2000;35(6):985–988; discussion 988–989
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Mooney DP,
    2. Birkmeyer NJ,
    3. Udell JV,
    4. Shorter NA
    . Variation in the management of pediatric splenic injuries in New Hampshire. J Pediatr Surg. 1998;33(7):1076–1078; discussion 1079–1080
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Jacobs IA,
    2. Kelly K,
    3. Valenziano C,
    4. Pawar J,
    5. Jones C
    . Nonoperative management of blunt splenic and hepatic trauma in the pediatric population: significant differences between adult and pediatric surgeons?Am Surg. 2001;67(2):149–154
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Myers JG,
    2. Dent DL,
    3. Stewart RM,
    4. et al
    . Blunt splenic injuries: dedicated trauma surgeons can achieve a high rate of nonoperative success in patients of all ages. J Trauma. 2000;48(5):801–805; discussion 805–806
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Rogowski JA,
    2. Horbar JD,
    3. Staiger DO,
    4. Kenny M,
    5. Carpenter J,
    6. Geppert J
    . Indirect vs direct hospital quality indicators for very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA. 2004;291(2):202–209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Rogowski JA,
    2. Staiger DO,
    3. Horbar JD
    . Variations in the quality of care for very-low-birthweight infants: implications for policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(5):88–97
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. 89.↵
    1. Shafi S,
    2. Friese R,
    3. Gentilello LM
    . Moving beyond personnel and process: a case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process. Arch Surg. 2008;143(2):115–119; discussion 120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Profit J,
    2. Zupancic JA,
    3. Gould JB,
    4. Petersen LA
    . Implementing pay-for-performance in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2007;119(5):975–982
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Pediatrics
Vol. 126, Issue 6
1 Dec 2010
View this article with LENS
Email Article
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Citation Tools
The Regionalization of Pediatric Health Care
Scott A. Lorch, Sage Myers, Brendan Carr
Pediatrics Dec 2010, 126 (6) 1182-1190; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1119
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts

Jump to section

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

Subjects